Saturday, October 02, 2004

Iraq, America's Bug Zapper

One of the common criticisms of our toppling of Saddam is that we've increased terror recruitment and those new recruits are now flooding Iraq.

Well, fighting back is bound to inspire an enemy to resist. This is all the same leftist distortion that makes any attempt to defend the US into rabid incitement. A missile shield? No way!! Then the North Korean's will only develop better delivery systems. Uh, but wait, they were already doing that without that pesky defense of our cities.

If only the Israelis would leave the poor Palestinians alone. Well, not really. Just let 'em do whatever they want, and give Yaser money to live on; and provide his people jobs; and make sure his police have enough weapons; and follow Amnesty International guidelines for national suicide.

So, back to Iraq. By the lefty logic, we should never do anything that causes Al Qaida to get excited. Just hide under the covers and wait of the next attack. Then hit back decisively with legal briefs presented to the international court at The Hague.

I think the increased recruitment and terrorist focus on Iraq are good things. First of all, the recruits are worthless without real training and that takes state-sponsorship and lots of resources to do it right. If they're going to fight us, then make it expensive. Second, it's a lot better to have these killers running headlong into the return fire of US soldiers than heading for downtown Manhattan. Iraq is a killing ground. Bad guys are dying by the thousands and we're still managing to build back some semblance of Iraqi sovereignty.

I just see this very dangerous trend from Kerry, the Democrats and the press to replay Tet '68 by turning a massive US victory into a defeat simply because the enemy was able to launch an offensive in the first place. Let's just ignore the fact that the Vietcong were militarily annihilated and were never again a factor in the war. It took the regular army of North Vietnam to conquer Saigon.

Now there's no equivalent in Iraq. There's no conventional army ready to move in and engage the US or Iraqi forces effectively.

This is an old fashioned war for public opinion which the left is all too willing to aid and abet.

Kerry Won! So what!!

Yep, Kerry was more articulate and showed a fair command of facts and figures, coming across as a more polished debater than the President. So, who gives a damn. Kerry still flip-flopped on Iraq. Was the war a mistake and, at the same time, necessary to disarm Saadam? He's still too much nuance and too little conviction. Bush came across with more conviction, but in his now familiar down-home package. He's everyman facing off the enemies of America. It's Tru-man the Republi-can!! Al Qeada doesn't give a shit about our choice of words. They'd like to see Kerry in their to prolong this war througfh useless negotiations, legalistic resolutions and "global tests".

Let's do a little simple disection of the Kerry plan for Iraq. We need more allied troops. Say, 200,000. But, we need to bring the US burden down from 90% to 40%. So, we need our allies to cough up about 120,000 soldiers, minus the roughly 10,000 that the British and Australians have over there. Who out there can put 110,000 troops on the ground? Well, none of our European "friends". And the Chinese and Indians aren't going to do it.

So, what exactly does Johnny boy expect? He'll work his charms on Chirac and Schroeder and they'll essentially commit their entire active duty combat arms to helping the great hegemon in the "great diversion"? Not a chance.

Let's face it. The military burden of fighting terrorist regimes and protecting the free world will remain a US one. We're the only country with the resources and, hopefully, the will to do so.

Kerry might have won on style, but the polls show Bush winning on substance. Americans know that success in the war depends on commitment and the will to win. Bush projects those qualities. Kerry's nuanced approach only emphasizes his indecisiveness. The voters see it.

Nuance is fine in the internal policy debate. However, the essence of effective governance, and management for that matter, is turning complex issues into clear, easily defined objectives. Brevity is the real test of our communications and analytical skills.